Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for your fucking god or any of the thousands of others which the human imagination has created over the millennia.  If you find some, feel free to present it for a critique.



(PS - don't bother with your bible.  That's a pile of shit written by men who were every bit as silly as you are.)

[Mister Agenda]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Atheists don't believe any God is real or any gods are real. Their estimate of the probability that one of them might be real depends on the atheist. Done and done.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

Well, the concept of God certainly exists, it's whether that concept corresponds to reality that's in doubt. In my experience, most atheists consider God improbable rather than impossible. Where do you get your numbers?

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

I certainly hope this is going to be convincing. If God is real, I definitely want to know.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

Evolution is the theory that explains diversity and speciation. You don't expect the Germ Theory of Disease to explain gravity, do you? It explains exactly what it purports to explain. I am disappoint.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

It explains it very well, and since the eye has evolved independently many times, we have splendid examples of eyes in every stage of development, from the eye spots of a tapeworm to the eyes of an eagle. I am sure there are videos that can walk you through eye evolution if you actually want to know. Or you could read the Wikipedia article or take a class. The information is readily available.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

You picked another good one there, since the fossil evidence for the transition from reptile to mammal is abundant, including details of how what was part of the jaw bone in reptiles is part of the inner ear of mammals. And we have a few types of mammal that still lay eggs to accentuate the point.

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution].

Psst. Variation within a genus that is conserved by natural selection totally counts as evolution, and in fact is a necessary part of evolution. You can't have change at the class level that doesn't start at the species level.

Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

What barriers of its DNA? There's a Nobel waiting for anyone who can demonstrate a mechanism in DNA that would prevent an organism from evolving indefinitely.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

There's no reproductive profit in trying to occupy a niche already full to brimming over, though something of the sort might happen somewhere where mammals are scarce. Now, if you're looking for examples of reptiles that give live birth (like boa constrictors), or are able to warm themselves internally (tegu), you can be obliged. One of them may eventually have descendants that would be considered a different class from reptilia; but they won't be mammals, they'll be their own thing, but they may resemble mammals in some ways.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

Your facts have all fallen flat. But like does beget like, if a dog ever gave birth to a cat on its own, that would upend evolution. The offspring are always the same species as the parents, except in certain cases involving hybridization. But some the descendants of your dog thousands of generations later might not be dogs any more, and probably would have trouble interbreeding with dogs of your dog's generation even if they're still basically dogs.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

It seems the evidence you've brought resoundingly does not support God being real, although evolution probably plays a role in the origin of the concept. What you've offered is so easily dismantled that you're likely to be thought a Poe (an atheist pretending to be a theist to make theists look dumb).

[Tonus]

If you just google "evolution of the eye" you get several sites and videos explaining how it happened. It's not a mystery. It gets chosen as an example due to the quote-mine of Darwin's comment about the evolution of the eye.

Similarly, google "reptile mammal transition" and you'll see articles and videos and images explaining it from various angles and showing a number of different ways in which the evolution of mammals has been studied and what has been learned.

The information is out there, there is no excuse for not having at least a basic understanding of evolution.

If theists are reduced to "the evidence supports the concept of God" then perhaps the view that "God probably doesn't exist" has merit. It seems that God has already been dismissed as anything more than a concept. I guess that's progress...

[Simon Moon]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

I believe the concepts of gods are very likely. Actual gods, not so much.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

So, then, you posit magic intervention was needed, although none is in evidence.

Some major leaps you are taking there...

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

True, evolution only explains the variety of life, not its origins.

But there are some very good explanations for how life could have started. And none of them require magic. They all are explained by what is currently known of physics and chemistry.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

Small, usable improvements over long periods of time.

There are many different organisms alive today, with every step from the most rudimentary eye, to the most advanced.

The earliest eye was a light sensitive patch of skin, like Euglena have. This allows them to sense light and shadow.

Next was light sensitive cells in a cup shaped indentation, like Planarian have. This allows them to sense light and shadow, with a bit of directionality.

Next step is light sensitive cells in a cup with a narrowed opening, like nautilus have. This allows them to have a bit of image focus.

Next is a simple lense, like Onychophora have.

Etc, etc, etc.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

We have fossil evidence for a very complete reptile to mammal evolution.

Where have you been living? The 18th century?

There are fossils with both reptile and mammal features. From more reptile features to more mammal features:

Therapsids -> Eutherapsids -> Neotherapsid -> Theriodontia -> Cynodontia

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

There are no barriers, at least as you believe. If there are, publish your findings, overturn all of biology, become famous, donate Nobel winings to religion of your choice.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

There is no need for the transition of modern reptiles to evolve into mammals. They have their environmental niche that they fit well enough to continue to survive as they are.

You seem a bit arrogant to believe you are able to refute all of evolution, without the least bit of understanding of the subject.

[Simon Moon]

I think we have ourselves a chess playing pigeon here.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Done with the evolution debate. It's the twenty-fucking-first century. People who attempt to dismiss evolution are not to be taken seriously.

Boru

[vorlon13]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

Which God, BTW ?

I'll assume you're in the Christian orbit, Christians have 70,000 different takes on God,  care to narrow it down to a few score or hundred or so ?

[Ravenshire]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

Read a science book once in awhile.

(emphasis is mine)

This. Oh, so much, this.

Your middle school science teacher should be fired for failing to teach you anything about how natural selection works.

[Astreja]

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life...

That's because evolution does not concern itself with origins.  You need to read up on abiogenesis research instead.
As for your alleged god, I see no evidence that is up to my standards.  Perhaps, mortal, you should petition your god to come speak to us in person in the here-and-now.  Until that happens, I am unconvinced and will not be making even the tiniest of efforts to look for your imaginary friend in the vanishingly small likelihood that it's anything more than fiction.

[pocaracas]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

---

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

---

Ah... another proponent of the god-of-the-gaps theory.

Think of it like this: if a god is Real, then that god is a part of Reality. If something is a part of Reality, then Science will, sooner or later, somehow, get to it. Until then, god is a nice notion, but has nothing solid to back it up.

Now, the tricky bit for you believers: the god concept appeared in the human mind thousands of years ago, when no science was really available.
What is more likely, given what we can all observe nowadays: that the concept was invented by human imagination or that a god actually appeared and imparted the information onto mankind?
If the latter, why are there atheists, still? Or even multiple belief systems?!
If the former, would the result not be something like what we observe?